Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:30:05 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[..]

> >> >> >> >> You do accept Harrison's argument,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No, I reject his argument now, as I have for two years.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> That's clearly a lie, even though you snipped
> >> >> >> the evidence away which proves it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There's no evidence that "proves it", it's false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> The evidence you keep snipping away does
> >> >> prove you support harrison's argument because
> >> >> it's from your own hand.
> >> >
> >> >It's an absurd claim that cannot be supported by objective evidence.
> >>
> >> I've supplied the evidence several times now,
> >
> >You're an idiot. You're arguing that *I* believe in a view that I have
> >argued against consistently for an extended period.
> >
> Yes, that's right, and you did the same when
> you first arrived here as an ARA, but you were
> caught out and shown to be a liar then as well
> as now.

At first I held the mistaken belief that vegans were categorically
contributing to less animal suffering than non-vegans. I have since realized
that was wrong. You're still living in denial.

> The quotes and admissions below prove you
> believe an animal benefits from getting to
> experience life and being able to reproduce after
> their predators have been removed

Of course they do. Would you not benefit if a killer was captured in your
neighburhood?

> by our moral
> consideration toward them

That's a lie, I said it was our actions, not moral consideration, towards
predators that benefitted the deer.

> as being "self-evident"
> and "obvious."

As I stated, yes, it's obvious.

> Your argument for removing predators from
> wild deer is the same as Harrison's for removing
> vegans out to eliminate livestock,

I didn't argue that we ought to remove predators, in fact I believe we
should leave more of them. I stated that removing predators benefits the
deer population.

>and the
> basis for your argument is the same as his,
> namely, that they should be allowed to benefit
> from our moral consideration toward them and
> their unborn offspring.

All false

You are, as always, an idiot.